Obama has offered churches an accommodation in the contraceptive insurance brouhaha. Churches per se, and their associated outreach programs and businesses (e.g., schools, hospitals, thrift shops and even traditional businesses) are no longer required to offer contraceptive insurance as part of their health insurance package. However, if a church does not offer contraceptives in its insurance, the insurance company must offer it free.
It is believed that insurance companies will save enough in pregnancy prevention to more than cover the initial cost, which will be substantial. The likelihood of insurance companies not attempting to, in some fashion, cover at least some of its costs in premiums is negligible approaching nil, according to some skeptics. Part of the reason for that is the reality that companies change insurance providers constantly, and insurance companies that pony up now may no longer be associated with these institutions as the non-event benefits become clear.
But this debate isn't about premiums, or downstream savings... this fight is about whether ANY religion can be required to follow any federal law or rule it doesn't like. In this case, the Roman Catholic Church is leading the fight against contraceptive insurance, but only verbally. EWTN Global Catholic TV Network, NOT the Church hierarchy, filed the lawsuit to block the rules before they were "tweaked," and have announced no plans to withdraw the suit.
The fight is also about the Presidential election. Although Obama has announced that any religious organization that wishes to take advantage of the new rules will have until 2013 before they go into effect (to allow for further negotiation), House Speaker Boehner announced his intent to repeal the rules, which would then make all religious organizations subject to the basic rule requiring TOTAL coverage, something approaching the "Mother of All Unintended Consequences."
Nobody expected a presidential election fight over contraception insurance, and no one was ready for it. Republicans are pontificating that the rule "...tramples upon the first amendment." Democrats are firing back that the alternative demanded by the Catholic Church (and now several fundamentalist and evangelistic denominations) is medieval and denies some women basic health care because of where they work. No one, however, seems to have a handle on where exactly to take this.
To hear the politicians and church leaders howl, a listener would think that contraceptive insurance was a new issue, a radical change in health insurance realities in America today. Wrong! According to the Chicago Tribune, here's what's going on... and it's utterly cynical and dishonest:
"...long before the Obama administration acted, 28 states -- including Mitt Romney's home state of Massachusetts and Newt Gingrich's home state of Georgia -- had already adopted regulations requiring contraception coverage without co-pay. Eight of those states, by the way, don't even provide an opt-out provision for churches. And you'd certainly never know that many leading Catholic universities -- including Catholic University, America's biggest Catholic university -- include free contraception coverage as part of their basic health insurance for all employees."
After noting that according to a recent poll, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control, the article continues:
"So now, by demanding government permission to deny contraception coverage in their own health plans, what Catholic bishops are really trying to do is get President Obama to deliver where they have failed."
President Obama needs to point out that this is NOT about "government control of your lives" as claimed by Rick Santorum. It's about allowing every woman in America access to an essential preventive health care service. That's his job... not enforcing a 1968 encyclical, or any other religion's ban on essential health care.
Photo Source: Wikipedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 167
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
With that said, I do agree that Politics is being plaid, why did Obama have to push this now. Remember it was HHS that kicked this off, why now, why push this at all? It is not the money, these drugs cost to little. What is the driving force? If it is not money it has to be power. Political power, the ability to chip away at morality and force people to do what is commanded.
To submit to the new authority...
At this point, the media, the church and all of the punditry are being used as tools to debate whether this is right or wrong according to their own bias, losing sight of the fact that the goal of this administration is to push more people off of private insurance and toward government sponsored plans in order to create a more dependent electorate.
you almost understood it, Eric, but not quite. It's not about government dependence, it's about survival. If private health insurance were willing to insure people of low income, Obama would have been delighted to leave the topic alone. But private health insurance was not interested, not without prodding.
There is no evidence anywhere that shows that insurance companies turned away paying customers. I think what you are trying to say is "If private health insurance were willing to give unlimited benefits to under-paying people of low income,"
I just spent two years watching the love of my life for 44 years die. More than one Explanation of Benefits exceeded $100,000. Without insurance, she never would have received that level of treatment.
Contrary to popular opinion, hospitals aren't required to provide full treatment to anybody if they can't pay. Every hospital that treated her had signs that said essentially, "If you have no insurance and cannot guarantee payment, we are only required to stabilize you. After that... have a nice day."
Having said that, the care she would have received just to stabilize her enough to kick her out, would have been paid for by YOU! Those costs (tens of thousands of dollars instead of $100,000) become part of the hospital's overhead, and are added to EVERY bill.
How do doctors deal with people in that situation? They send them to the ER or Urgent Care, neither of whom are equipped to deal with MS, MD or other chronic diseases and their day-to-day management issues.
I know, I know... You're cold. You're tough. Life's a bitch. If I can't afford health care, I deserve no better than what I've described. Anybody who really wants it, can get it. They may have to give up housing, a complete diet, decent clothing... but if they don't have it, it's their fault and they deserve to die.
Personally, Dorothy, as someone with a pre existing condition no one would insure, I am really not going to miss the freedom to die for lack of insurance, thank you very much.
Ron, sorry to hear of your situation with a life threatening condition, but not sure what your comment to me has to do with my comments,... or even how freedom restritive expansion of government over everyone solves that delima.
I am evidence.
Ron. Everyone has a blind side. Are you aware of yours?
There is no evidence anywhere that shows that insurance companies turned away paying customers.
Nope, not yet....
Insurance is and has always been meant to cover unexpected problems based on actuarial tables. It has never been meant to pay an individuals bills when they discover they have an illness or accident and then apply for insurance.
Just try to get a new auto insurance policy when your car is laying up-side down in a ditch. You will get turned denied and rightly so.
Offer any insurance company enough money to satisfy the cost of the illness you know you have plus the standard premium for unforseen risk based on actuarial tables and they will accept you, but that is not what parasites want.
If want others to pay your bills, why don't you just come out and say so. Why all the beating up on insurance companies when you seem think you deserve a free ride through life.
Dorothy. You can certainly correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think if you had experienced what I have experienced in relation to insurance companies, you'd look for something - even government - to run some intereference re: the degree to which insurance companies are able to rob you. Again, your comments, like "It's the process of expending governmental power over the lives of peoples...," which lead me to "presume" that you have yet to experience the "freedom" of being exploited.
BS!! I paid into insurance for many years without any direct benefit.
"Insurance is and has always been meant to cover unexpected problems based on actuarial tables. It has never been meant to pay an individuals bills when they discover they have an illness or accident and then apply for insurance."
I won't go into my specific medical history, but your description is so far from what actually happens, that I have to think you are extremely naive or that you work in the insurance industry. And while I would not wish on my worst enemy what happened to me, I think you are in for a real shock, if you ever need serious medical treatment.
"Just try to get a new auto insurance policy when your car is laying up-side down in a ditch. You will get turned denied and rightly so."
You just continue to mischaracterize this situation. I have had auto insurance since I first had a driver's license. I have had no wrecks, and I haven't even had a moving violation in over 25 years. But let's look at your homeowner's insurance, if you're a resident of Mississippi or Louisiana, after you've been devastated by Katrina (does that qualify for your "unexpected problem"? Policyholders had to take State Farm to court to gain some minimal degree of satisfaction from that company - you know, the "like a good neighbor" company?
"...but that is not what parasites want."
Yes. For decades, I paid premiums. I never once thought of sick people as "parasites". Btw, I'm not sick today. I haven't been for 14 years. But thanks to your actuarial tables, it doesn't matter.
"Offer any insurance company enough money to satisfy the cost of the illness you know you have plus the standard premium for unforseen risk based on actuarial tables...."
I will be very willing to do exactly that, just as soon as the insurance industry refunds all of the premiums I paid over the last 4+ decades. You know, all that money that the other "parasites" used for their treatments - not to mention executive compensation packages and bonuses.
"If want others to pay your bills, why don't you just come out and say so. Why all the beating up on insurance companies when you seem think you deserve a free ride through life."
Your assumption is that I've had a free ride through life, which is very far from the truth. Like "parasites", that's just a way for you to pretend that you - and those you care about - are substantially different than you. Your mischaracterization of my situation - and doubtless, many thousands of others - is quite bizarre.
Yes, Dorothy, there is evidence anywhere that shows that insurance companies turned away paying customers. I, and many others with pre existing conditions are that proof.
Also by definition it is neither liberal nor progressive. It is oppressive.
Which of the following would qualify as violating the above statement?
Option 1 - Telling women what medical procedures they're allowed to have.
Option B - Guaranteeing women they may have any medical procedure available, no matter WHO their employer is.
Governments are neither moral nor immoral, especially in the instance you describe. Powers used by the government are either legal or illegal, OR constitutional or unconstitutional... NOT moral or immoral.
BTW - Your Interstate highway system example is absurd. Assuming it can be protected, it remains what Eisenhower intended... a civilian financed, built and maintained highway system that will allow for rapid ground deployment of large military forces anywhere in the country, should that be necessary (if the enemy doesn't bomb it into a series of interconnected radioactive craters). Meanwhile, it is ours to use. The one thing he intended that it will never be is an evacuation route out of major cities. It can't handle rush hour, much less panic hour.
All things paid for by our government is civilian financed BTW.
"Governments are neither moral nor immoral"
That's is Abusrd. Laws granting rights to governments or limiting government power is a reflection of those who wrote and/or voted for the laws.
Could we try this again?
Which of the following would qualify as violating the above statement?
Option 1 - Telling women what medical procedures they're allowed to have.
Option B - Guaranteeing women they may have any medical procedure available, no matter WHO their employer is.
Yes, Jeff. It is wrong. The force part, and the theft of peoples money, too. Wrong. Just plain 'ol wrong, but,...your that same person that seems to worry about what you deemed, "free people", like it's a bad thing, or something, so I can see you thinking that force and theft is a-okay!
bout reality.
a.) Quit their day jobs.
b.) Pool their Assets.
c.) Incorporate as an Insurance company that covers any and all maladies and afflictions while not taking any premium payments from their customer base.
d.) Welcome any and all, without regard to finacial concerns.
e.) Boast to anyone that will listen that they are smarter and more compassionate.
f.) Declare bankrupcy.
It will always end that way regardless of the stated goal or deep-felt convictions.
How does that even begin to make sense?
Why do people think they are entitled to free health care or insurance when the company they work for could not afford to give their products or services away for free?
Will the same level of acceptance by the media and punditry when some coverage is mandated upon insurance providers that the media would consider an affront to their beliefs?
Where should interference by the government into free commerce end? Should congress or a president, most of whom have never run a business or been responsible for a payroll, be allowed to mandate rules on businesses.
Because I paid for medical insurance for decades before I got sick? Because the insurance company "pre-certified" the surgery I required, before they decided for two years that they were not going to pay for it? I guess we should just be satisfied to pay for corporate executive compensation packages and bonuses - and when we get sick, we should not expect to get medical treatment. When we get sick, we become "parasites" - right? You must believe you're invincible. You know - it is quite a shock when you have that first symptom - and your MD confirms you're sick. You're no different, dude. It's just a matter of time.
"Where should interference by the government into free commerce end?"
First, this is exactly why medical treatment/insurance should not be a matter for "free commerce". There is an inherent conflict of interest between patient care and profit. Second, if it is a matter of "free commerce", then government should mandate that you cannot simply be dropped, if you have paid into medical insurance plans over your lifetime - as I have. "Free commerce" should mean that insurance companies have to make good on their oblgations and liabilities, without having to be taken to court.
This too will pass.
Either make everyone follow the same law OR get rid of the law entirely. Opening a can of worms like this just ensures job security for a bunch more lawyers and other parasites.
The constitution is unfortunate? Typical lib...
"dipshit" - really?
Where is it written that the president has the power to dictate changes to what the employer must provide to every worker?
Where is it written that the president has the power to dictate what you, the sovereign individual must buy?
With that said, what are the limits to government authority?
Are there limits at all?
Inalienable Rights? Remove God, and all you have left is Man, and he will be King.
The affordable care act is now the law, and that defines government's role in medical insurance coverage. If you don't want government "interfering" in your medical insurance, then you'll be happy to know that the insurance industry would love to have no limitations in their "freedom" to exploit you.
We may as well be voting on which schooyard bully we think it best to steal our children's lunch money.
I would rather be bullied by my employer or a company that I employ, than by the government, king or dictator. For in the end I choose who I am employed or who I employ.
I have never seen stats on abortions, relative to one's liberal or conservative political orientation. I recall that unplanned pregnancies occurred at least as often among youth, who were enrolled in "abstinence only" programs. But I've never seen stats on actual abortions.
Sorry - beyond nonsense.
When do you think life begins Chuck?
"Even so, this issue is about contraception"
I am getting tired of repeating myself. The contraceptions that Obama wants employers and insurance companies to pay for included abortificants. I am not pusing any denominations "moral" position as such. I want to save lives.
Feel free to stop. We'll be happy. You'll be happy.
No - that's a matter of belief. That's the point. People, churches, philosophers, scientists - there is no uniform view on that point.
No - it's a matter of science. The point at which that unique life is considered a person is a matter of belief.
These are the kind of questions that make me use the word "dipshit". If a religion is against a medical practice to avoid childbirth you can't FORCE it to pay for it or provide it to anybody. When the first article written makes it clear that your question is boneheaded I would suggest getting away from the doom and gloom, apocalyptical, environmental disaster stories and take a deep breath.
So, you think "religion" is what a group of pedophile-protecting, costume-wearing theocrats (aka, "dipshits") say it is - when 90-something per-cent of the congregation knows better?
"...your question is boneheaded I would suggest getting away from the doom and gloom, apocalyptical, environmental disaster stories and take a deep breath."
Looks like you're the one hyperventilating.
Should all hospitals be required to provide the exact same benefits? Maybe the govt should set the pay too. Why should a nurse get payed less at one hospital when other hospitals pay more? Does that seem fair to you?
Yeah, I think so, at least in a minimum coverage sense, there is no one hospital or organization that can ride herd on the excesses of the insurance industry, and people have been going bankrupt for years because of it. A minimum standard, with freedom to go beyond that if wanted or needed is something that is long overdue.
1)Mandated auto insurance is to protect others, not the policy holder (liability not comprehensive).
2) States have more rights with regards to mandates than the Federal government (see 10th Amendment)
3)I don't know of any auto policy which covers routine maintenance much less optional services.
Using the health and safety of the unborn fetus, the president declares that no federal funds can be used to perform pre-birth infantile murder and further mandates that no contraceptive services can be covered by insurance policies of companies receiving federal funds or working under federal contracts.
How is this scenerio so different from the usurpation of authority exhibited by HHS in the current debate.
On the issue of contraception, even 90+% of catholics ignore the catholic heirarchy's "moral authority" on the issue - which calls into serious question whether the authoritative clergy really speaks for the moral position of the catholic church. In other words, do you mean by the "church" the celibate clergy? Or do you mean the catholic congregation? This is certainly no infringement on the religious faith of the catholic congregation, to be sure. Btw, do you really think that an authoritative clerical heirarchy, with a history of protecting pedophiles in its ranks, is capable of defining the "moral position of the catholic church" for that congregation, which by and large igores it?
The scenerio is presented as an example of acts of impunity by an administration that is actively destroying any semblence of limited government.
Should all legal contracts between individuals and companies be reviewed by the White House or have to pass muster of a Federal Department?
You mean the "moral" positions of the catholic heirarchy. The major objection to the law is that it infringes on religious liberty. It doesn't.
"...acts of impunity by an administration that is actively destroying any semblence of limited government."
Preventing corporate exploitation of citizens is not the "impunity" of concern here. It's the "impunity" of the corporations, which walk away from their obligations.
"Should all legal contracts between individuals and companies be reviewed by the White House or have to pass muster of a Federal Department?"
Legal contracts already imply government involvement by virtue of the fact that they are legal. Of course, some contracts are not legal. Yes, the government at some level has some obligation to protect citizens from unscrupulous industries. The insurance industry has invited this regulation. That said, medical care really should not be a matter for private insurance, except perhaps as supplemental. Government need not provide medical care, as it does in Canada and various European countries, but it should operate a national medical insurance service. And it should mandated for every citizen to meet even your "parasite" charge, above. Everyone pays, everyone benefits. Here is the interchange with the private sector, though. If an industry is determined to produce a product that is known to raise medical risks, and if citizens are determined to purchase those products, then both industry and citizens should be required to chip in a little more - through a medical tax - to help cover the additional medical costs that are required. If that is not acceptable to you, then come up with a better plan that does not regard people as "parasites" when they get sick, and doesn't drop them at that point, either. Remember, you're going to be one of those sick folks at some point. It's just a matter of time.
The insurance companies and their customers willingly entered into a contract at a set fee for a specific set of benefits. Then the Dept of HHS with the approval of the White House proceeded to change the terms of the contract, giving added benefits to the customer without adjusting the fees collected.
How is this legal and can this be a precedent for future contracts and administrations.
First - it ain't "heath care" - it's medical insurance. Second - I understand why you'd want to ignore that aspect - given you consider people with medical conditions, "parasites". There was a democratic congressman, who noted that the republican advice to sick people was to "die quickly." At the time, I thought that was an absurd assertion. But having read your comments, it seems entirely accurate. Please keep using that description. I will feel free to quote you frequently.
"...and look at the legal ramifications."
Sure. Ever heard of the "Affordable Care Act"? It mandates preventive care. Contract have to adhere to the law.